Comment Policy

Comment Policy: Comments are allowed, but please keep them focused on the topic of the post you are commenting on. Comments and/or spam not pertaining to the subject of a particular post will most likely be deleted.

Saturday, June 14, 2014

Contra Craig McKee: A Boeing 757 Did Strike the Pentagon

[Comments on this post are now closed]

Researcher Craig McKee has recently posted an article claiming to show evidence that one of the five frames showing the Pentagon strike was deliberately doctored. His conclusions are taken from the film "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" (DVD 2min. 17). The maker of the film, Massimo Mazzucco, has already been strongly advised to revise this particular section of the film, as it does not take into consideration the work produced by others in the Truth Movement which shows that a Boeing 757 did impact the building.


The McKee article contains a number of bizarre and false claims, such as:
[O]ther key evidence (including the nature of the damage to the building, the lack of debris outside the building, and the on-camera accounts of credible witnesses who put the plane on a different flight path that the one required to produce the damage path), proves that the Pentagon was the scene of a faked plane crash and that 9/11 was an inside job.
Each of these claims have been refuted numerous times. There was a considerable amount of debris recovered from the Pentagon that clearly came from a Boeing 757. The damage to the building is perfectly consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 (not a bomb or a missile).








And I'll let the eyewitnesses speak for themselves.




But the key point of Mr. McKee's article is his insistence that one frame from the Pentagon footage was doctored, which as far as he's concerned is proof 9/11 was an inside job. There's certainly evidence the official story is false (even in regards to the Pentagon), but the conclusions reached by both Mr. McKee and the film regarding the Pentagon footage are demonstrably false. The frame in question is the one pictured below, which according to Mr. Mckee and the film shows only the tip of the incoming plane, rather than the main body of the plane.

Frame taken from "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" 
(DVD 2, min. 21:16) The arrow points to what the narrator
calls the nose of the plane.
This, says Mr. McKee and the film, is inconsistent with a frame taken from the second video showing the Pentagon strike, which does show what at least appears to be the tail and horizontal stabilizer of the plane. And thus, at least one of these videos must have been doctored. However, this conclusion is based from a misrepresentation of the footage used in the film, which is of very low quality. What Mr. Mckee and the film identify as the "tip" of the plane is actually the leading edge of the white smoke produced from the plane, likely caused by damage the plane sustained when it impacted the light-poles. 

A higher quality version of the footage shows that a plane can reasonably be made out and seen. The plane is in fact in front of the smoke trail.




As much as I sympathize with Mr. McKee and others in the Movement in calling for a new investigation, we must do so on the grounds of solid evidence. And the idea that no plane hit the Pentagon simply doesn't fit that criteria.

45 comments:

  1. Hello Mr Taylor,

    You make some mighty tall charges here concerning the article by Craig McKee, yet only give very sketchy rebuttal and general critique. Simply saying things like:

    "it does not take into consideration the work produced by others in the Truth Movement which shows that a Boeing 757 did impact the building."

    But worse you offer the utterly bogus video clip "Flight 77 frame analysis" which is not at all a presentation of original pristine cam footage, but an "enhancement" with obvious manipulations, of not only format, but color, presenting a "leading argument", while presenting a blur as an aircraft by suggestion.

    Having had a long and grueling email discussion with the lead author of "the work produced by others", and having the opportunity to critique his PDF in progress through several revisions, I am of the opinion that the final product is simply bunk, and in no way 'proves' the assertion of an actual air crash at the Pentagon.
    He misrepresented witness testimony in gross and flagrant manner, plus includes witnesses in his witness pool who could not have even seen the impact from the POV they had.
    He even disputes the claims of eyewitnesses that were in the perfect position to identify the actual flightpath of the aircraft which place it north of the Citgo station. Claiming one, that they were mistaken about their place and perceptions when seeing the aircraft, and then claiming that they were witness to the impact - which is actually not possible from these witnesses at Citgo, specifically the two police officers. From their vantage point at that time they could only see the top story and roof-line of the Pentagon due to a rise in the hill between them and the building.

    These witness testimonies have been picked apart with great care on several articles on Pilots for 9/11Truth, showing why many of the most celebrated "impact witnesses" simply could not possibly have witnessed an impact. There is more, much more to say in criticism of those who claim that the essence of the official story is true.
    But I will say this much now at this juncture, you have shown bias in your current argument by relying on the faulty account given by the parties you site as giving Mazzucco "advice" to reconsider his Pentagon portion of the film.

    ~W. Whitten

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But worse you offer the utterly bogus video clip "Flight 77 frame analysis" which is not at all a presentation of original pristine cam footage, but an "enhancement" with obvious manipulations, of not only format, but color, presenting a 'leading argument', while presenting a blur as an aircraft by suggestion."

      Are you going to present evidence that the footage I used is "enhanced" or manipulated in any way? What makes the footage featured in "Sept. 11 - New Pearl Harbor" any more reliable, given its obvious low quality? Until you provide some actual evidence my footage is manipulated and not just of much higher quality, your claim is worthless.

      "He misrepresented witness testimony in gross and flagrant manner, plus includes witnesses in his witness pool who could not have even seen the impact from the POV they had."

      Examples? You do know that when you make a claim you need to back it up with references and evidence, right? The point about the police officers at Citgo is examined at length in these videos. They show that Sgt. Lagasse's account IS inconsistent with his position at the time of the impact:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VefUF5w8Dz0
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZI6WaDxQzw

      You're more than welcome to try and contact any of these witnesses and talk to them about what they saw:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfQEwxxVyKY

      Feel free also to talk with 150+ first responders who personally removed plane debris and body parts from the building: http://www.amazon.com/Firefight-Inside-Battle-Save-Pentagon-ebook/dp/B001A6ZWLK/

      A final note, I notice on your Google+ account criticism of the WTC no-plane theories. There are eyewitnesses to those crashes as well, which I'm sure you find genuine. So why are the accounts of the plane hitting the Pentagon any less credible?

      Delete
    2. "Are you going to present evidence that the footage I used is "enhanced" or manipulated in any way?"

      Yes, it is in the nature of the video itself, your "high quality" which can only be due to 'enhancement' - plus the fact of the format, which is wide screen, entirely different from the original footage, which is low quality by the very fact that it is from a surveillance cam.

      Are you the one that produced this "Flight 77 frame analysis"?
      If not do you know who did? And finally can you actually honestly say that the blur you are speaking to can be said to be an airplane?

      Now, do you grasp the significance of 'Trajectory'? Do you understand the the witnesses seeing the plane north of Citgo describe a trajectory that simply could not have caused the damage path within the Pentagon?

      Even Mike Walters said he saw the plane come in north of Citgo. Again, that trajectory is inconsistent with the damage path.

      You ask about my argument about the planes that struck the towers, as if the circumstances of the two events is in any way comparable. A plane flying a hundred stories high crashing into a skyscraper and being caught is clear video footage is totally different from the aerodynamic problems of flying such aircraft so low to the ground at the Pentagon site.
      "ground effect" would have sucked that plane into the dirt long before it reached the facade of the building.

      You claim to be interested in science and technology. Well for the technological aspects of the aerodynamics of all three of the aircraft that came to their targets, you should read and watch the presentations of Pilots for 9/11Truth.

      This is an article on the WTC event at my blog:

      http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911/

      Feel free to check out the other 9/11 related thread there as well.

      The article there on No-Planes disinfo, has the crash physics explained for the event at WTC, along with a comparative materials analysis between the buildings and the planes.
      ...
      As far as my discourse with Mr Legge, it is spoken to on several threads on Truth and Shadows. If you want me to give you more citations than you were even willing to give in your article in this comments section, I think you are asking a bit beyond what you yourself have been willing to give.

      \\][//

      Delete
    3. "You ask about my argument about the planes that struck the towers, as if the circumstances of the two events is in any way comparable. A plane flying a hundred stories high crashing into a skyscraper and being caught is clear video footage is totally different from the aerodynamic problems of flying such aircraft so low to the ground at the Pentagon site.
      'ground effect' would have sucked that plane into the dirt long before it reached the facade of the building."

      Ah, but wait, P4911T claim that the maneuvers the WTC planes exhibited also would not have been possible to hit the buildings. And yet even they (at least most of them) don't argue that no planes hit the WTC. They (and also you on your blog) suggest the planes were potentially switched out with duplicate planes that could perform those maneuvers. So you yourself and P4911T acknowledge that the physical limitations of an aircraft doesn't automatically entail no-plane at all hitting the structure. And why would the case be different for the plane that hit the Pentagon? Personally I believe it was Flights 11, 175 and 77 that hit the buildings, but if the planes that hit the towers were aircraft designed to exceed the limitations of a standard boeing aircraft, why couldn't that be the case for the Pentagon as well?

      And as for the whole "ground effect" issue,this is dealt with in detail here. In short, the argument is wrong:

      http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW1cs_QDeP8&t=5m30s

      Delete
    4. Thank you for the aerospace article. Perhaps I have that aspect of my argument wrong , I will consult with my own experts to make sure.

      However on that very page is a overview shot of the damage path in the Pentagon said to be caused by the plane.
      This is the part that is utterly impossible as per the witness testimonies of a North of Citgo approach. Do you as yet still not grasp this argument?

      Also the P4911T do not dispute the WTC impacts. They were not concerned with the maneuvers but the problems of stalling due to air density. This is why it is posited that the aircraft are drones with special fans to deal with the thicker air near sea level.
      See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/AutopilotSystemsMonaghan.pdf

      \\][//

      Delete
  2. "Feel free also to talk with 150+ first responders who personally removed plane debris and body parts from the building: http://www.amazon.com/Firefight-Inside-Battle-Save-Pentagon-ebook/dp/B001A6ZWLK/"

    I would suggest you have a look at my in depth critique of this book at McKee's blog, written in 2012. I show this book to have no credibility.

    http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/official-911-propaganda-embraced-by-truthers-who-say-that-a-plane-hit-the-pentagon/

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr Taylor,

    These are good links too

    Witness pool broken down

    http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008854

    Alleged impact witnesses (well worth a look)

    http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008855

    Physical Reaction

    http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008858

    Media embellishment, lies, distortions (the Hoffman piece uses the media as “proof”)

    http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008857

    Connections (witness pool quoted by media consists of media, government, military)

    http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008859

    \\][//

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wait, wait, let's back up here for a moment and let me get what you are saying straight. You say above:

    "Personally I believe it was Flights 11, 175 and 77 that hit the buildings.."

    Am I then to take it that you believe these planes were flown by boxcutter wielding "terrorists" and that Hanjor was piloting that plane you believe hit the Pentagon?

    Before we go any further I want to get your answer to this.

    Thanks, \\][//

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Am I then to take it that you believe these planes were flown by boxcutter wielding "terrorists" and that Hanjor was piloting that plane you believe hit the Pentagon?"

      Here's what I believe. Yes, I do believe real terrorists were on the aircraft hijacked on 9/11. Furthermore, I believe they really did believe they were carrying out a terrorist plot. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean they alone carried out the attacks. It just means that the true conspirators allowed the hijackers to carry out their plot, but then took control of the situation (hijacked the hijackers in a sense), and enhanced the results. If criminal forces within the US government allowed real foreign terrorists to carry out this attack, but themselves enhanced the results, then 9/11 is still an inside job.

      My position, and the one generally held by most others at the 911debunkers blog, is summarized here:

      http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/12/alleged-911-plotters-offer-to-confess.html

      Furthermore, just because there were real terrorists on board, doesn't mean they were actually in control of the planes. For a certain period of time they might have been, but as I said, the hijackers themselves could have been hijacked, via remote control takeover of the planes (as there is evidence of in the Aidan Monaghan paper you've cited). I certainly don't think it was Hani Hanjour who piloted the plane into the building, since by most accounts he lacked the necessary experience (as we've shown at our blog here: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/12/knee-deep-in-crap.html)

      My point regarding the WTC planes and the Pentagon plane is simple. P4911T claim that each of these planes exhibited characteristics that go beyond the capabilities of a standard boeing aircraft. Even granting their premise is true (which I don't believe it is; planes can certainly fly that fast at lower altitudes, even near the ground: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW1cs_QDeP8&t=5m30s), they only conclude that two of the three impacts were genuine. Why? If the planes that hit the Towers were modified to allow them to do what was done, why couldn't that be the case for the plane at the Pentagon? Why do for one and not the other? This is really the big problem with this whole "no-plane at the Pentagon" idea; what's the point? What sense does it make to fake:

      -The plane hitting the building
      -The lightpoles being knocked down
      -Eyewitness testimony
      -Plane debris
      -Jet fuel residue
      -Damage to the building consistent with a plane impact
      -DNA from victims on the plane

      All of this would had to have been faked in order to pull off whatever plan you think the conspirators had in mind. But why do it? Why not just fly the plane into the building? Which would leave ALL of this evidence without the need for any of it to be faked. It's Occam's razor, pure and simple.

      Delete
  5. The plane observed at the pentagon on 9/11 flew over and away. The proof for this is overwhelming and conclusive. Much if not all of your article has been previously debunked Mr. Taylor. Truth and Shadows blog will gladly debate this with you and we will I am sure respond to your article in depth and in short order.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mr Taylor,

    The following link has a discussion of 'ground effect':

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=12549&st=0&p=10741011&#entry10741011

    \\][//

    ReplyDelete
  7. For the record Mr Taylor the damage to the pentagon facade is in no way consistent with a large airliner impact. There are two 12,000+ lb engines to account for which if they struck the facade MUST have gone through it due to their massive kinetic energy and MUST have created a hole. There is no hole for the engines and also THERE WERE NO ENGINES FOUND IN THE WRECKAGE AT THE PENTAGON. No engine holes and no engines = no airliner impact. The fact that the engines were not found and that no parts with identifiable serial numbers were found is damning evidence that an airliner did not strike the pentagon. This proof is separate and apart from the CIT witness proof which is also conclusive due to the cumulative strength of all the corroborating testimonies. In point of fact Mr. Taylor all of the following claims you made above are questionable particularly this one:

    "-Damage to the building consistent with a plane impact"

    But these claims are also in serious question:

    "-The plane hitting the building
    -The lightpoles being knocked down
    -Eyewitness testimony
    -Plane debris
    -Jet fuel residue
    -Damage to the building consistent with a plane impact
    -DNA from victims on the plane"

    For example can you direct me to any details about the environmental cleanup of the jet fuel? That much fuel would have required by law an proper cleanup. Can you link me to any information on that cleanup stating who did it and what they did? Jet fuel would be toxic to the people at the pentagon so it could not be simply buried for example. If it was there the law required that it be cleaned up so as to not harm humans.

    Other issues with your points exist which I will go into another time. I am interested to see what your thoughts are on these points.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice to see that you completely ignored all three images I provided showing the damage is consistent with a plane impact, and that the engines fit in the 96 foot wide hole produced.

      http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Ff7bBs07sJk/U5xnzfc6aaI/AAAAAAAABME/kzK-QtsGmzo/s1600/Pent2+(1).jpg

      http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pentagon_boeing_large.jpg

      You mean these engines? http://www.oilempire.us/oil-jpg/debris2_engine.jpg and http://www.oilempire.us/oil-jpg/debris3_engine2.jpg

      You mean this serial number? http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11-attacks-investigation-and-related-materials/Image/9-11-pentagon-debris-1

      Delete
    2. People at the Pentagon smelled and had physical contact with the jet fuel.

      “At first I thought I’d blown up the fax machine. Then I realized that it wasn’t me. I smelled the jet fuel.” -Louise Rogers, Civilian Accountant at the Pentagon (http://vimeo.com/23007585)

      "Once they stabilized Brian, they transferred him to George Washington Hospital where...the best, cutting edge burn doctor in the U.S. The doctor told him that had he not gone to Georgetown first, he probably would not have survived because of the jet fuel in his lungs." (http://web.archive.org/web/20020920180715/http:/www.aog.usma.edu/Class/1961/BirdwellLuncheon.htm)

      "We had one guy who was standing, looking out the window and saw the plane when it was coming in. He was in front of one of the blast-resistant windows," says Kirlin President Wayne T. Day, who believes the window structure saved the man's life. According to Matt Hahr, Kirlin's senior project manager at the Pentagon, the employee "was thrown about 80 ft down the hall through the air. As he was traveling through the air, he says the ceiling was coming down from the concussion. He got thrown into a closet, the door slammed shut and the fireball went past him," recounts Hahr. "Jet fuel was on him and it irritated his eyes, but he didn't get burned." (http://web.archive.org/web/20020126151006/http:/www.designbuildmag.com/oct2001/pentagon1001.asp)

      According to Matt Hahr, Kirlin's senior project manager at the Pentagon, the employee "was thrown about 80 ft down the hall through the air. As he was traveling through the air, he says the ceiling was coming down from the concussion. He got thrown into a closet, the door slammed shut and the fireball went past him," recounts Hahr. "Jet fuel was on him and it irritated his eyes, but he didn't get burned." (http://web.archive.org/web/20040404074145/http:/www.designbuildmag.com/oct2001/pentagon1001.asp)

      "At one point, he went into the charred opening, to check on the safety of workers there “There was jet fuel all over the place. It was very smoky, and it was difficult to breathe, even with a respirator,” he said." (http://web.archive.org/web/20100910124413/http:/www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3069699/)

      "Rosati was in a meeting when the plane hit. "I ran down the hallway and there was smoke everywhere. You could smell the jet fuel, it was unbearable," he said. "I was overcome with smoke, but managed to get a lieutenant colonel out. I went back in to the hallway. The smoke was so dense I couldn't stay. I was ordered out." (http://web.archive.org/web/20060704023910/http:/www.dcmilitary.com/marines/hendersonhall/6_39/local_news/10797-1.html)

      "A plane flew over my house," Rob Schickler, a 2001 graduate and Arlington, Va. resident, said. "It was loud, but not unusual because the [Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport] is by my house, on the other side of the Pentagon. Occasionally planes that miss the landing fly over my house." Schickler lives one mile away from the Pentagon. ... "A few seconds later, there was this sonic boom," he said. "The house shook, the windows were vibrating. Obviously something had happened. ... There was a hole in the building, and you could smell it in the air. It's a beautiful day, but you can smell the burning concrete and burning jet fuel." (http://web.archive.org/web/20020209071249/http:/www.baylor.edu/Lariat/091201/alumni.html)

      Delete
    3. Jet Fuel Source:

      Posting to September 11th Message Board Greg A. Lohr Staff Reporter, / © 2001 American City Business Journals Inc / Sept 14.
      Anderson Ted Lt. Col. Ted Anderson : "We ran to the end of our building, turned left and saw nothing but huge, billowing black smoke, and a brilliant, brilliant explosion of fire." (...) One of the Pentagon's two fire trucks was parked only 50 feet from the crash site, and it was "totally engulfed in flames," Anderson says. Nearby, tanks full of propane and aviation fuel had begun igniting, and they soon began exploding, one by one. (...) Back in the building again, Anderson said he began "screaming and hollering for people as secondary and third-order explosions started going off. One of them was a fire department car exploding-I think my right eardrum exploded at the same time, and it unequivocally scared the heck out of me." http://www.msnbc.com/news/635293.asp

      \\][//

      Delete
    4. Mr Taylor,

      Have you identified what aircraft would be:

      AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.
      MOD S567
      S/N 944**???
      . . . . . . . .
      Of course there isn't even the remote possibility that this rather picturesque item was 'planted' -- the Feds would never dream of doing something so dastardly. Right?
      \\][//

      Delete
  8. You know Mr. Taylor I have gone through this entire argument including the pictures of the facade you posted numerous times. For years now these same arguments have been made and debunked. None of this is new nor are the pictures. I will be happy to painstakingly go through it all again with you if you are serious about finding out the truth. I really do not want to waste the considerable amount of time it is going to take to do this if you are going to hand wave the evidence away and refuse to acknowledge it when I show you the errors in your "evidence" and in your stance regarding impact. In other words if you are willing to debate this in good faith (you have so far) and admit it when you are shown to be in error then I am willing to put in the time. We can do one issue at a time otherwise it just turns into a cluster *&*^.

    I will start by addressing the picture showing the facade and the so called impact damage and restrict myself to addressing only your point about how it shows damage consistent with impact in my next post.

    I do this stuff in my spare time so if you do not see a response right away it doesn't mean there isn't one it just means I have not had time yet to post one. If you agree to be patient we will eventually get somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Fortunately Mr. Taylor I was able to find a complete and very detailed analysis of the facade damage which painstakingly debunks the plane impact theory here: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1875&st=0&#entry22013004

    I will post selected parts of this as necessary to address specific claims but I wanted to give you the opportunity to look at this issue in the detail I have first and see how thoroughly the "impact" pictures have been scrutinized and debunked as pictures showing "impact". What these pictures actually show is that explosives went off inside the pentagon and blew things out. Incidentally even pillars are pushed outward which is quite impossible if they were hit by an airliner but quite understandable if an explosion came from inside. The researcher who did this is a regular on truth and shadows and posts under the name OneSliceShort. I thank him for doing this so we no longer have to reinvent the wheel and reassemble all this for each new person who supports the official impact scenario.

    ReplyDelete
  10. As to the Rob Schickler report of smelling burning jet fuel and concrete I would like to point out the problem with his report and why he could not possibly have smelled any burning jet fuel from his position. First of all in Schickler's own words he lived over a mile away from the pentagon on the opposite side from Reagan airport. Since Reagan is south and slightly east of the pentagon we can deduce that Schickler lived on the northern side of the pentagon. Well the prevailing wind on 9/11 which can be seen blowing the smoke from the pentagon SOUTH towards Reagan in the video linked below proves Schickler could not possibly have smelled anything from the pentagon. Let's just say he was either embellishing or mistaken and not lying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACQjTbYUt-s

    See this is the problem Mr. Taylor it all comes down to personal bias and who you choose to believe without question. In this case you choose not to question Schickler's account because it supported your contention of jet fuel and I choose to question it because I happen to know that jet fuel cleanup was never done at the pentagon by other research I have done. That is how I know Schickler is shall we say mistaken. I will address the other two you posted later after I see your response to this new Schickler conundrum.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Extrapolated interpretation of extremely fast motion in visual perception is a known fact of human consciousness. Watching movies would be impossible without this extrapolation ability, and this is why a certain speed of frames is necessary for “moving pictures” to become viable to the human perceptions.

    This same phenomena is what gives success to many stage magic tricks reliant on “slight of hand”, this mixed with distraction techniques and controlled POV is the mainstay of stage magic.

    If the Pentagon event is considered with these facts in mind, the staged event, and the resulting confused and conflicting testimonials of the people who witnessed this magic act becomes very clear to researchers.
    \\][//

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Talk to the witnesses yourself. Convince them they were fooled. They don't conflict in saying they saw the plane hit the building. It's extremely telling that you take their word for it when they say they saw the plane north of the citgo, but not when they say they saw it hit the building. Talk to any of the first responders who pulled debris and body parts out of the building. You'll never do any of this.

      Delete
    2. " It's extremely telling that you take their word for it when they say they saw the plane north of the citgo, but not when they say they saw it hit the building."~Taylor

      It is extremely telling that you do not understand the 'solid sense of place' compared to visual perception of fast moving quick events. Again: 'Extrapolated interpretation of extremely fast motion in visual perception is a known fact of human consciousness', this is in no way supposition it is a physical fact at extreme speeds object will appear as indistinct blurs, and the natural neural ability to extrapolate will tend to try to make sense of such. This is not something that you aren't experienced in as well, whether you recognized what was going on mentally or not.

      You can be at a fairly familiar location and have a complete sense of place. However if an event takes place at extreme speed, and you catch a glimpse of this event, you are not going to be anywhere near as certain of what you just saw compared to the certainty of where you are when you saw it.
      Now if you are going to argue with this you are being willfully obtuse.
      . . . . . .
      As to the Double Tree footage:
      Same phenomena as above; 'controlled POV'.

      Consider that the hotel footage did not show a plane approach the Pentagon either.
      From the POV of that camera the plane would have reached the smoke screen made by the explosion at a fraction of a second after the explosion took place. The plane lifting just over the height of the roof-line of the Pentagon would have taken place within the smoke screen, thus the flyover was hidden by the smoke screen. Simple reasonable explanation.

      The main problem you have is in accepting the witnesses of the NOC, while dismissing the physics of trajectory and vector. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the plane to have cause the damage in the vector path from entry to exit.

      You say "talk to the witnesses" myself. I don't have to, their testimony is in the record. Whether they are willing or unwilling to grasp the significance to the NOC approach or not is insignificant, just as your unwillingness to grasp the significance is.
      Your only choice is then to dismiss these witnesses in toto, because the NOC path cannot have caused the known physical damage to the building.

      Now more to visual perception and sense of place. Sean Boger was the witness in the helipad tower. His testimony clearly claims he saw the plane come overt he middle of the Navy Annex, over the north side of the Citgo and directly towards him. This is all solid 'sense of place' testimony. As it dawned on Boger that the plane indeed was heading right towards him, split seconds became panic moments. The cringe response will cause anyone in that situation to duck. That he hit the deck a split second before the explosion is clear. He heard and felt the explosion and assumed the plane must have hit the building. But again - it could NOT have; Trajectory - damage path proves it could not have hit the building by the NOC approach.

      Hemphill, same thing, he insists over and again that the plane went over the top of him and continued over the Citgo station. He thinks he saw it hit the Pentagon at the instant of the explosion - again, IMPOSSIBLE because of the physical damage path.

      So the things I have said about perception of fast moving events and extrapolation, whether actually visual or in "instant replay" to make sense of what one just saw, is not simple supposition on my part.
      \\][//

      Delete
    3. Sgt. Brooks, from the Citgo station, told CIT privately that their findings re the NoC evidence vs. the official path were "very eye-opening" and he conceded that "anything is possible" with regard to his being fooled about the impact. Say whatever else you want to say about the personalities of Craig and Aldo, but having worked with them for a few years awhile back, one thing they do not do is fabricate or lie, and I have no doubt that they are telling the truth about this exchange.

      Delete
    4. You evidently don't know that my opinion of Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis is that they are both insane. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them, and you shouldn't either.

      Delete
  12. The item pictured in the image at the link below is the subject of this short analysis – comment.

    The first thing one notices is the picture perfect pose of this item, and the way it perfectly frames the white ‘text/numeral tag’ stuck to it.
    The second thing to note is that this is a hand lettered with a fine point permanent marker {such as Sharpie makes}
    The tag itself is the same general material as the stick-on tags for automobile license plate to show the current year of registration.

    It is the first thing that leads me to the conclusion that this is a planted prop in a staged crime scene. This conclusion doesn’t stand alone, but this item simply reinforces what is already established.

    As a prop, it is a very simple matter to produce this piece. A part from a real Boeing jet, a blank American Airlines ‘Model Number/Serial Number’ sticky tag, a black marker, and plausible numbers to write into the spaces. A Boeing part could be crinkled and given the character of an accident part with just a couple hours of careful manipulation – the prepared tag was likely added at a midway point, just before the final curling of the “frame” around the tag.

    This is a very nice job, But it has one problem, it is too artsy fartsy, too much an obvious display piece. This is something I learned to avoid in prop making for special effects cinematography. Achieving ‘realism’ in prop making for film is a very subtle art-form – it is even more difficult for props to be scrutinized forensically.

    This point standing alone cannot be made the overall point however, as the case of a Jet Crash at the Pentagon is already proven false beyond a reasonable doubt as surely as the WTC complex was destroyed by explosive demolition. Explosive demolition is the mechanism in both cases, WTC and the Pentagon.

    See image here:
    http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11-attacks-investigation-and-related-materials/Image/9-11-pentagon-debris-1

    \\][//

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One ad hoc assertion after another. Good luck proving any of that.

      Delete
    2. You clearly don't understand that you can just make up anything you want, but that still doesn't make it true. You have no evidence for any of that. At least I'm trying to work with what we actually have, not blind speculation. Question: why doesn't the hotel footage of the Pentagon strike show a fly-over? (Rhetorical question btw. I already know what your answer will be.)

      Delete
    3. "You have no evidence for any of that. At least I'm trying to work with what we actually have, not blind speculation."~Taylor

      I dispute both aspects of this assertion you have made here.

      First of all your claim of " trying to work with what we actually have". This is not so, as has been explained repeatedly; because what we have is verified NOC, and the issue of trajectory - that belies the damage path of the physical evidence.

      My evidence of the fact of the item discussed that was supposedly "found" in the grass of the Pentagon lawn is not the explanation of how it was likely produced, as I said in my closing lines to that comment:

      -'This point standing alone cannot be made the overall point however, as the case of a Jet Crash at the Pentagon is already proven false beyond a reasonable doubt as surely as the WTC complex was destroyed by explosive demolition. Explosive demolition is the mechanism in both cases, WTC and the Pentagon.'

      Please pay closer attention to the whole of what I am saying here, because the bottom line is and will continue to be Trajectory and NOC = no plane crash.

      You must successfully dispute NOC to come up with a plane crash. This is an impossible task as it is already proven beyond reasonable doubt.

      \\][//

      Delete
    4. -"One ad hoc assertion after another. Good luck proving any of that."~Adam Taylor

      In argumentation, an ad hoc argument is one that is hastily constructed to support or explain something without any underlying logical framework. Because of this haste and lack of a consistent frame-work, such an explanation likely contradicts other existing thoughts or arguments.

      But my logical framework is already existent and given before I constructed my analysis of the item: "AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC - MOD S537 – S/N 944**?".

      You are taking my argument backwards. I am not saying that my analysis proves an airplane didn't crash at the Pentagon. I am saying that since it is already proven that an airplane didn't crash at the Pentagon, mine would be an explanation for a particular planted piece of evidence.

      If you read the comment with my analysis again, you will see that I do not use my analysis as a proof of no airplane crash, and say such plainly in my final remarks.
      \\][//

      Delete
  13. Second attempt with this question:

    Mr Taylor,

    Have you identified what aircraft would be:

    AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.
    MOD S567
    S/N 944**???

    - What part of a Boeing does this come from? Where is this item now? Has this part been offered as evidence in any legal action?
    In other words, what significance does it have as "evidence"?

    Thank you, \\][//

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Talk to any of the first responders who pulled debris and body parts out of the building. You'll never do any of this."~Adam Taylor

    But really Adam, no one disputes that people were killed in the conflagration at the Pentagon. The area that was blown up was occupied. And this comment you just made is inching towards the emotionally charged mantra of the official story apologists' concern for the "family of the victims", meant to shut down debate out of "respect for the victims".

    You seem to claim that these witnesses are idiots that do not know exactly where they were, nor what the familiar landmarks in their area are, and where the plane flew in relation to such landmarks and their own position — BUT they can be trusted to have seen the impact.

    I find this proposition remarkably absurd, and most certainly liable to ridicule.

    The significance of what the trajectory of the aircraft actually was did not occur to ANY of the witnesses or reporters at the time of the event at the Pentagon. That significance would only come to light later when the damage path within the building was revealed.

    This is why the witnesses who were in a position to tell, and saw the plane fly north of Citgo, and over the Naval Annex did not grasp what they were revealing in their testimony. This is why, regardless of how convinced they were that they saw an impact, it is in conflict with the majority of their testimony.

    So their testimony has a glaring and critical self-contradiction. One which obviously causes cognitive dissonance to these witnesses, so convinced that they actually saw an impact, and yet proving that the plane could not have caused the damage as discovered.
    Now their conundrum has become ours – most of all for those who try to claim that these witnesses actually saw an impact; they are suffering the same cognitive dissonance as the witnesses themselves.

    And this problem has become ours who grasp this as well, because of the difficulty in convincing true believers that they are wrong.

    \\][//

    ReplyDelete
  15. http://www.consensus911.org/point-video-1/

    http://www.consensus911.org/point-video-2/

    The information in these two consensus points throw a wrench into the government’s story about the alleged hijackers ever being on the 9/11 flights in question.

    \\][//

    ReplyDelete
  16. I call on Adam Taylor to make a public apology for his baseless and spurious hit piece on Craig McKee and Truth and Shadows.
    \\][//

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, good luck with that. I don't have much incentive to apologize to nutcases.

      Delete
    2. Well boy, now you are going to have to live with this...

      Good luck with that...Lol
      \\][//

      Delete
    3. Oh dear me, how will I ever live with what I've done? How will I ever sleep at night knowing I've pissed off some random crackpots online?

      Delete
  17. Adam, are you calling me a nutcase? Really?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You swallow. Don't you pussyboy.

      "Guess so.. gulp."

      You don't even have the balls to make a strong affirmative.
      \\][//

      Delete
    2. Mr. Taylor,

      You have just exposed yourself as a TINO (Truther In Name Only) as far as I am concerned. I will add you to the list of TINO's who do not have the courage or personal integrity to honestly debate the pentagon evidence. My posts above stand without rebuttal from you by the way. There was no jet fuel cleanup at the pentagon Adam because there was no jet fuel. The facade damage was NOT consistent with airliner impact either. In point of fact your entire position on the pentagon is a house of cards. Deal with it.

      Delete
    3. Oh wow, I'm on your list. What an honor. Here's all the rebuttal I need:

      http://www.scientificmethod911.org/pentagon.html

      Delete
  18. @Adam Taylor
    A good critique of Mr. McKee's article, and Mr. Mazzucco's film dealing with the videos of the plane at the Pentagon. The image of the plane is pretty obvious and what surprises me is that this has not been pointed out a long time ago. There is Youtube video dealing with it that shows the image more clearly than in this film. Everyone seemed to be fixated on the 'nose of the plane' idea without examining the rest of the image. It's strange that the digital expert who obviously spent a lot of time looking at just one small area of one photograph, was able to identify the 'nose' of the plane as the smoke trail but didn't draw the logical conclusion from it and look for the plane ahead of it.
    A.Wright

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for being a drop of reason in a pool of insanity.

      Delete
  19. Indeed I shall. I will do my best to push ahead knowing that some guy I've never heard of thinks I'm a "nutcase" and a "random crackpot." (I'm curious: what would a non-random crackpot be?)

    You've been exposed here, on your own blog, as a fraud who has no credibility. And it's your own words that have done that. I don't care if you've written something good about the towers (a pretty safe and easy thing to do), but your Pentagon position is absurd and supports the debunkers and the official story. Proud of that?

    I don't know if you're a shill or not, but you might as well be. You're doing their work for them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You've been exposed here, on your own blog, as a fraud who has no credibility."

      Good luck convincing anyone else who actually matters.

      "your Pentagon position is absurd and supports the debunkers and the official story. Proud of that?"

      I'm seeking the truth no matter where it takes me. Nothing more, nothing less. If we never get a new investigation, it will be because of people like you. Proud of that?

      Delete